# Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra and Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1063
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-09-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dipankar Dutta, Manmohan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/anjuman-ishaat-e-taleem-trust-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-38704
- **Pages:** 97

## Headnote

1) Whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment
in a minority educational institution must qualify the Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET); If so, whether providing such a qualification would affect
any of the rights of the minority institutions guaranteed under the
Constitution of India; and 2) Whether teachers appointed much prior
to issuance of Notification dated 29th July, 2011 by the National
Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) u/s.23(1) of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)
read with the newly inserted proviso (second proviso) in s.23(2) and
having years of teaching experience (25 to 30 years) are required
to qualify in the TET for being considered eligible for promotion.
Headnotes†
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
s.23 - Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - Whether mandatory:
Held: Obtaining the TET qualification under the RTE Act is
mandatory - Consequence of not obtaining such qualification flowing
from the scheme of the RTE Act is that the in-service teachers
would cease to have any right to continue in service. [Para 200]
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 - s.2(n) - Applicability of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)
to In-Service Teachers - Directions issued under Article 142
of the Constitution:
Held: The provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by
all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the
schools established and administered by the minority - Whether
religious or linguistic - Till such time the reference is decided and
subject to the answers to the questions formulated by this Court -
Logically, in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
411
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in
service - However, there are in-service teachers who were recruited
much prior to the advent of the RTE Act and have been imparting
education to their students to the best of their ability without any
serious complaint - To dislodge such teachers from service on
the ground that they have not qualified the TET would seem to
be a bit harsh although operation of a statute can never be seen
as an evil - Bearing in mind their predicament, directions issued
by invoking Art.142 of the Constitution that teachers having less
than five years' service left, as on date, may continue in service till
they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET -
However, if any such teacher (having less than five years' service
left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without
having qualified the TET - Insofar as in-service teachers recruited
prior to enactment of the RTE Act and having more than 5 years
to retire on superannuation are concerned, they shall be under
an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order
to continue in service - If any of such teachers fail to qualify the
TET within that time, they shall have to quit service - They may
be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits they
are entitled to - To qualify for the terminal benefits, such teachers
must have put in the qualifying period of service, in accordance with
the rules - If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and
there is some deficiency, his/her case may be considered by the
appropriate department in the Government upon a representation
being made by him/her - Those aspiring for appointment and
those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion
must, however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right
of consideration of their candidature. [Paras 214-217]
Constitution of India - Article 30 - Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - s.12(1)(c) -
Constitution Bench decision in Pramati Educational and
Cultural Trust, exempting minority educational institutions,
whether aided or unaided, falling

## Text

_Characters 0–39,991 of 217,451. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39991 for what follows._

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 410 : 2025 INSC 1063
Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust
v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2025)
01 September 2025
[Dipankar Dutta* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
1) Whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment
in a minority educational institution must qualify the Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET); If so, whether providing such a qualification would affect
any of the rights of the minority institutions guaranteed under the
Constitution of India; and 2) Whether teachers appointed much prior
to issuance of Notification dated 29th July, 2011 by the National
Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) u/s.23(1) of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)
read with the newly inserted proviso (second proviso) in s.23(2) and
having years of teaching experience (25 to 30 years) are required
to qualify in the TET for being considered eligible for promotion.
Headnotes†
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
s.23 - Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - Whether mandatory:
Held: Obtaining the TET qualification under the RTE Act is
mandatory - Consequence of not obtaining such qualification flowing
from the scheme of the RTE Act is that the in-service teachers
would cease to have any right to continue in service. [Para 200]
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 - s.2(n) - Applicability of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)
to In-Service Teachers - Directions issued under Article 142
of the Constitution:
Held: The provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by
all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the
schools established and administered by the minority - Whether
religious or linguistic - Till such time the reference is decided and
subject to the answers to the questions formulated by this Court -
Logically, in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
411
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in
service - However, there are in-service teachers who were recruited
much prior to the advent of the RTE Act and have been imparting
education to their students to the best of their ability without any
serious complaint - To dislodge such teachers from service on
the ground that they have not qualified the TET would seem to
be a bit harsh although operation of a statute can never be seen
as an evil - Bearing in mind their predicament, directions issued
by invoking Art.142 of the Constitution that teachers having less
than five years' service left, as on date, may continue in service till
they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET -
However, if any such teacher (having less than five years' service
left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without
having qualified the TET - Insofar as in-service teachers recruited
prior to enactment of the RTE Act and having more than 5 years
to retire on superannuation are concerned, they shall be under
an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order
to continue in service - If any of such teachers fail to qualify the
TET within that time, they shall have to quit service - They may
be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits they
are entitled to - To qualify for the terminal benefits, such teachers
must have put in the qualifying period of service, in accordance with
the rules - If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and
there is some deficiency, his/her case may be considered by the
appropriate department in the Government upon a representation
being made by him/her - Those aspiring for appointment and
those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion
must, however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right
of consideration of their candidature. [Paras 214-217]
Constitution of India - Article 30 - Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - s.12(1)(c) -
Constitution Bench decision in Pramati Educational and
Cultural Trust, exempting minority educational institutions,
whether aided or unaided, falling under clause (1) of Article
30 of the Constitution, from purview of entirety of the RTE
Act - Correctness of - Doubted:
Held: 1. In the wake of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust,
minority status seems to have become a vehicle for circumventing
the mandate of the RTE Act - It has opened up a situation whereby
multiple institutions have sought to acquire minority status to
412
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
become autonomous - It has also opened the door for potential
misuse - Exemption of even aided minority institutions from the
framework of the RTE Act has further encouraged the proliferation
of minority-tagged schools not necessarily for the preservation
of language, script, or culture, but to circumvent statutory
obligations - This has distorted the spirit of Article 30(1), which
was never intended to create enclaves of privilege at the cost of
national developmental goals - The ruling in Pramati Educational
and Cultural Trust strikes at the heart of good quality universal
elementary education and its consequences are far-reaching - A
reconsideration of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust seems
unavoidable - The minority status of an institution must be grounded
in a genuine commitment to serve its community, and not merely
operate as a vehicle for evading constitutional duties - If the object
of Article 30 is to protect identity, then compliance with the RTE
Act, insofar as it does not annihilate that identity, ought not to be
viewed as an encroachment - The Court in Pramati Educational and
Cultural Trust focused on s.12(1)(c) of the RTE Act and no other
section and held the entirety of the RTE Act to be inapplicable to
an entire section of society - Thereby, such section, so to say, has
been totally excluded from the idea and notion of nation building
by providing education to children at the grassroot level - Even
if one were to accept that s.12(1)(c) violated Article 30, the same
could have been read down by including at least the children
of the particular minority community who also belong to weaker
section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood - To hold
that the entirety of the RTE Act is inapplicable is not reasonable
and proportionate - Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, ruling
that RTE Act would not apply to minority institutions, in effect
would offend the Article 21A right of students admitted in such
institutions - They would stand denied of the various statutory
entitlements and benefits that the RTE Act affords to all children
between 6 and 14 years of age. [Paras 131, 132, 185, 187, 188]
2. It is doubtful as to whether Pramati Educational and Cultural
Trust [insofar as it exempts the application of the RTE Act to
minority schools, whether aided or unaided, falling under clause
(1) of Article 30 of the Constitution] has been correctly decided - A
coordinate Bench in Ashwini Thanappan v. Director of Education
after recording the submission of counsel for the petitioner of
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust being inconsistent with the
decision in P.A. Inamdar and requires further examination, directed
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
413
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India - The reference is yet to be answered - Hon'ble
the Chief Justice of India to consider the desirability as to whether
the following issues, namely, a. Whether the judgment in Pramati
Educational and Cultural Trust exempting minority educational
institutions, whether aided or unaided, falling under clause (1)
of Article 30 of the Constitution, from the purview of the entirety
of the RTE Act does require re-consideration?; b. Whether the
RTE Act infringes the rights of minorities, religious or linguistic,
guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution? And, assuming
that s.12(1)(c) of the RTE Act suffers from the vice of encroaching
upon minority rights protected by Article 30 of the Constitution,
whether s.12(1)(c) should have been read down to include children
of the particular minority community who also belong to weaker
section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood, to save
it from being declared ultra vires such minority rights?; c. What is
the effect of non-consideration of Article 29(2) of the Constitution
in the context of the declaration made in Pramati Educational
and Cultural Trust that the RTE Act would not be applicable to
aided minority educational institutions? and d. Whether, in the
absence of any discussion in Pramati Educational and Cultural
Trust regarding unconstitutionality of the other provisions of the
RTE Act, except s.12(1)(c), the entirety of the enactment should
have been declared ultra vires minority rights protected by Article
30 of the Constitution?, or such other issues as may be deemed
relevant, do warrant reference to a larger Bench. [Paras 208-210]
Constitution of India - Article 21A - Constitutional goal of
Universal Elementary Education and Common Schooling
System:
Held: It is only in furtherance of its commitment to universal
elementary education that Parliament enacted the Constitution
(Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, introducing Article 21A and
elevating the right to free and compulsory education for all children
aged between 6 and 14 years to the status of a fundamental right -
Under the RTE Act, focus is on elementary education which is the
foundational building block of a child's journey of learning, rather
than tertiary or higher education - Elementary education could
count as the most crucial stage in the education cycle - Universal
elementary education and a common schooling system aim to
uphold a shared curriculum and uniform quality standards across
414
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
both government and private schools, ensuring that every child
receives an equal foundation, regardless of where they study -
Without universal access, education becomes a privilege rather than
a right, accentuating existing inequalities and denying children from
disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to break the cycle of
poverty - When every child receives the same minimum standard of
elementary education, society moves closer to genuine substantial
equality, where one's start in life does not dictate his/her future
potential - Moreover, universal elementary education is the bedrock
of a healthy democracy and an empowered citizenry - Countries
that have succeeded in achieving universal primary education have
consistently demonstrated higher levels of social mobility, public
health, and national cohesion - This vision is clearly embedded in
the RTE Act - s.29 mandates that the curriculum and evaluation
process for elementary education must be prescribed by an academic
authority notified by the appropriate government - The curriculum is
to reflect constitutional values and focus on the holistic development
of the child-promoting creativity, physical and mental growth, learning
through play and exploration, instruction in the child's mother tongue
where possible, and a stress-free, inclusive learning environment
with continuous assessment - Article 21A, which guarantees the
right to free and compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14,
inherently includes the right to universal elementary education -
Education that reaches every child, regardless of background - It
also embraces the idea of a common schooling system, where
children from diverse socio-economic and cultural groups learn
together in shared spaces. [Paras 93, 95, 98, 99]
Constitution of India - Whether Article 30(1) envisages blanket
immunity from all forms of regulation to minority institutions:
Held: Article 30(1) has never been construed as conferring blanket
immunity on minority institutions from all forms of regulation - With
respect to unaided minority institutions, the interpretation of Article
30 must be guided by its underlying purpose of preserving the
cultural, linguistic, and educational identity of minority communities
and promoting their welfare - The mere admission of a "sprinkling
of outsiders" neither defeats the purpose of Article 30 nor does it
dilute or alter the minority character of such institutions. [Para 143]
Constitution of India - Does the Regulatory framework under
the RTE Act, flowing from Article 21A, classify as a reasonable
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
415
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
restriction under Article 19(6) - Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009:
Held: In a constitutional framework that is animated by the
values of justice, equality, fraternity and dignity, commercial
freedoms under Article 19(1)(g) must yield where they conflict
with the fulfilment of Fundamental Rights particularly those of
children - RTE Act is the legislative expression of a fundamental
right under Article 21A - Its regulatory mandate, therefore,
acquires constitutional legitimacy through Article 21A, and by
extension, Article 21 - When tested against the standard of
reasonableness under Article 19(6), the regulatory measures
imposed by the RTE Act are not only not arbitrary, they are
necessary, imperative and proportionate, and in furtherance of
the larger constitutional goal and vision of Article 21A - While
the autonomy of minority institutions must be protected, it is
not beyond the reach of reasonable regulation in the interest of
maintaining educational standards and achieving constitutional
goals - Rights under Article 30(1), not being absolute, cannot be
claimed to the complete exclusion of Article 21A - The former
cannot be construed as overriding the mandate of the latter -
Article 30(1), which guarantees minorities the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice, is undoubtedly
a vital part of the constitutional promise to preserve linguistic
and religious diversity - However, this right, like all others under
Part III, is not absolute - It must be read in harmony with other
Fundamental Rights and constitutional goals - When minority
institutions engage in the act of imparting education, particularly
elementary education, they necessarily operate within a shared
constitutional ecosystem - To argue that Article 30(1) grants the
minority institutions immunity from all statutory frameworks aimed
at securing the right to education under Article 21A or that there
can be no restrictions imposed under Article 19(6) would be to
prioritize one right over another, thereby undermining the right
to education under Article 21A. [Paras 146, 149, 151]
Constitution of India - Article 21A - Quality of education is
inherent in the right to education - Teachers' role in imparting
quality education - Discussed:
Held: While reflecting on free and compulsory education, one cannot
be oblivious of the need for quality education to be imparted to
children aged between 6 and 14 years - Compromising the quality
416
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of a teacher would necessarily compromise quality of education,
and is a direct threat to the right of children to quality education
which is a necessary concomitant of the right guaranteed by Article
21A - This, in turn, would render the entire object and purpose of
the RTE Act meaningless - In the sphere of primary education,
a qualified teacher, at the very least, would be an assurance of
quality education - Quality of education is, therefore, inherent in
the right to education under Article 21A. [Para 163]
Constitution of India - No inherent conflict between Article 30
and 21A:
Held: Both Article 21A and Article 30(1) occupy high constitutional
position and must be interpreted harmoniously by complementing
each other - There is no inherent conflict between Article 21A and
Article 30(1). [Para 171]
Minority institution - Applicability of Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Discussed:
Held: The minority status of an institution must be grounded in
a genuine commitment to serve its community, and not merely
operate as a vehicle for evading constitutional duties - If the
object of Article 30 of the Constitution is to protect identity, then
compliance with the RTE Act, insofar as it does not annihilate that
identity, ought not to be viewed as an encroachment. [Para 185]
Service Law - Appointment and Recruitment - Meaning of
the terms:
Held: The term 'appointment' means not only initial appointment
but also covers appointment by 'promotion', among others -
Appointment and recruitment are two distinct but not unrelated
concepts - Recruitment is the broader process of which selection
is a part that culminates in an appointment - Recruitment can be
carried out from various sources, which are broadly classified into
internal and external sources - Internal sources would comprise
individuals who are already employed within the organization - This
would include an appointment by promotion or transfer - External
sources, on the other hand, consist of individuals who are not
currently in the service of the recruiting organization - Direct
recruitment is an appointment from external sources or from open
market, so to say. [Paras 194, 196]
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
417
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
Constitution of India - Judicial discipline - Precedents -
Article 141:
Held: The law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts which
would include itself too - Nonetheless Supreme Court possess a
unique authority, unlike the high courts and the subordinate courts,
to re-examine legal principles laid down by previous Benches -
Such re-examination, however, cannot obviously be resorted to
except for compelling reasons - Two judges Supreme Court Bench
can merely doubt the view expressed by a larger Bench; not differ
and depart from such view of a larger Bench. [Paras 123, 207]
Judicial Pronouncement - True impact and legacy - Principle:
Held: The true impact and legacy of a judicial pronouncement
lies not merely in the precision of its reasoning, but by whether it
stands the test of time; whether, years after its pronouncement,
it continues to respond meaningfully to the problem it set out to
address and serve the ends of justice or has failed to do so - The
test of such a decision is whether it has alleviated or aggravated
the practical challenges it sought to remedy and lived realities it
endeavoured to shape. [Para 132]
Service Law - No difference as such between qualification
and eligibility. [Para 205]
Case Law Cited
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India [2014] 11
SCR 712 : (2014) 8 SCC 1 - doubted.
Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Shri Ram Chand [1965] 3 SCR 218; In
Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957 [1959] 1 SCR 995; T.M.A. Pai
Foundation v. State of Karnataka [2002] Supp. 3 SCR 587 : (2002)
8 SCC 481; Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of
Gujarat [1975] 1 SCR 173 : (1974) 1 SCC 717 - followed.
M. Ramachandran v. Govind Ballabh [1999] Supp. 3 SCR 38 :
(1999) 8 SCC 592; K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka [1994]
Supp. 2 SCR 105 : (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 44 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
392 - relied on.
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India
[2012] 2 SCR 715 : (2012) 6 SCC 102; Society for Unaided Private
Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India [2012] 2 SCR 715 : (2012)
6 SCC 1; P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [2005] Supp. 2
418
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SCR 603 : (2005) 6 SCC 537; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of
India [2008] 4 SCR 1 : (2008) 6 SCC 1; State of Kerala v. N.M.
Thomas [1976] 1 SCR 906 : (1976) 2 SCC 310; Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala [1973] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC
225; CSIR v. KGS Bhat (1989) 4 SCC 635; T.R. Kapur v. State
of Haryana [1987] 1 SCR 584 : (1986) Supp. SC 584; Secy.,
Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose [2006] Supp. 9
SCR 644 : (2007) 1 SCC 386; Brahmo Samaj Education Society
& Ors. v. State of West Bengal [2004] Supp. 2 SCR 214 : (2004)
6 SCC 224; Sindhi Education Society v. Chief Secretary Govt.
of Delhi [2010] 8 SCR 81 : (2010) 8 SCC 49; Chandana Das
(Malkar) v. State of West Bengal [2014] 13 SCR 796 : (2015)
12 SCC 140; Committee of Management, Vasanta College for
Women v. Tribhuwan Nath Tripathi [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 56 : (1997)
2 SCC 560; Food Corpn. of India v. Bhanu Lodh [2005] 2 SCR
350 : (2005) 3 SCC 618; Union of India v. Pushpa Rani [2008]
11 SCR 440 : (2008) 9 SCC 242; Hardev Singh v. Union of India
(2011) 10 SCC 121; J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
(1990) 1 SCC 288; Union of India v. Krishna Kumar [2019] 1 SCR
982 : (2019) 4 SCC 319; Zee Telefilms v Union of India [2005] 1
SCR 913 : (2005) 4 SCC 649; B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory
of Pondicherry [1967] 2 SCR 650 : AIR 1967 SC 1480; State of
Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra [1968] 2 SCR 154; Director of
Settlements, Andhra Pradesh v. M.R. Appa Rao [2002] 2 SCR 661 :
(2002) 4 SCC 638; Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab [1979] 3 SCR
1059 : (1979) 3 SCC 745; State of UP v. Synthetics & Chemicals
Ltd. [1991] 3 SCR 64 : (1991) 4 SCC 139; Arnit Das v. State of
Bihar [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 69 : (2000) 5 SCC 488; Madhav Rao
Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India [1971] 3 SCR 9 : (1971) 1
SCC 85; Christian Medical College Vellore Assn. v. Union of India
[2020] 5 SCR 516 : (2020) 8 SCC 705; Mohini Jain v. State of
Karnataka [1992] 3 SCR 658 : (1992) 3 SCC 666; Unni Krishnan,
J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 1 SCR 594 : (1993) 1
SCC 645; Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabhai v. State of Gujarat [1963] 3
SCR 837; N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. (1986) Supp. 1
SCC 166; Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School
Education [1988] Supp. 3 SCR 893 : (1989) 1 SCC 392; State
of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale [1992] 3 SCR 792 :
(1992) 4 SCC 435; Chandigarh Administration. v. Rajni Vali (Mrs.)
[2000] 1 SCR 158 : (2000) 2 SCC 42; State of Orissa v. Mamata
Mohanty [2011] 2 SCR 704 : (2011) 3 SCC 436; Bhartiya Seva
Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel [2012] 7 SCR 1054 :
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
419
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
(2012) 9 SCC 310; Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal
[2024] 11 SCR 1647 : (2025) 6 SCC 1; Ashwini Thanappan v.
Director of Education (2014) 8 SCC 272 - referred to.
Arvind Kumar Shukla v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine All
1665 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Constituent Assembly of India Debates (Volume 7, 08.12.1948),
7.69.35 & 7.69.36 (Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava)
List of Websites
<https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/
upload_document/RTE_Section_wise_rationale_rev_0.pdf>
List of Acts
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009; The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
(Amendment) Act, 2017; The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment)
Act, 2002; The Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005;
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules,
2010; The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational
Subordinate Service, 2020; The National Council for Teacher
Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment
of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001; The National Council
for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications
for Persons to be Recruited as Education Teachers and Physical
Education Teachers in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary,
Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges)
Regulations, 2014.
List of Keywords
Minority educational institution; National Council for Teacher
Education; Teacher Eligibility Test; in-service teachers;
Qualification; Recruitment; Appointment; Right to education;
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust; Minority status; National
developmental goals; Minority schools; P.A. Inamdar; Ashwini
Thanappan; Minority rights; Minority community; Referred to
larger bench; Universal elementary education; Common schooling
system; Free and compulsory education.
420
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 4640 of 2016
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 1386, 1364-1367, 1389, 1404, 1395,
1396-1397, 1405, 1403, 1398, 1406-1408, 1393, 1399, 1391, 1401,
1390, 1409-1410, 6367, 6365, 6366, and 6364 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
S. Nagamuthu, P. Wilson, Shankaran, Ans Nadkarni, K.radhakrishnan,
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., M. P. Parthiban D. Kumanan, Amol
Chitale, Sarthak Sharma, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Apoorv Malhotra,
Lokesh Krishna, M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,
Ms. Nivedita Nair, Sudarshan Lamba, Sabarish Subramanian, Ms.
Jahnavi Taneja, C. Kranthi Kumar, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Riddi
Bose, Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Danish Saifi,
Ms. Rishi Agarwal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, K M Nataraj, A.S.G.,
Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Ms. Manisha T Karia, K Parameshwar,
Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Advs., A. S. Rajnarayan, Ms. Neelam Singh,
Krishan Kant Kumar, Sudarshan Lamba, Vatsal Joshi, Ms. Satvika
Thakur, Kanu Agrawal, Raman Yadav, Chitvan Singhal, Kartikay
Aggarwal, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Ms. Ameya Vikrma Thanvi,
Oorjaswi Goswani, K. Paari Vendhan, Vishal Sinha, Tushar
Srivastava, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Ms. Shalini Chandra, Deepin Deepak
Sahni, Ms. Ananya Arora, Ms. Shreya Gupta, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,
Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Rahul Joshi, Mrs. N. Kavitha Rameshwar,
A. Rajarajan, Mrs. L. Vasuki Rajarajan, R. Ramachandran,
M. Yogesh Kanna, Mohd Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Syed
Mehdi Imam, Vinamra Kopariha, Yash S. Vijay, Sanjay Kumar Dubey,
T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Vivek Kumar Pandey, Ms.
Shivani Mishra, Alabhya Dhamija, Aditya Kashyap, Santosh Kumar,
Ayush Anand, Sai Shashank V, Praneet Pranav, Bhaskar Gautam,
Dr. G Babu, Mugundhan, Monu Kumar, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,
Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Bhoopesh Pandey, Jitesh Sharma, Ms.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
421
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
Saumya Mishra, Bharat Bhushan Mishra, Ms. Nidhi Jain, Ankit
Goel, Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Deepika Kalia, Ms. Vasudha Singh,
Ms. Vaishnavi, Ms. Madhumeet Kaur, Sudeep Chandra, Pratyaksh
Semwal, Mohnish Nirwan, Ashok Kumar, Vipin Tiwari, Umesh Dubey,
Ms. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, A. Rajarajan, Ms. L. Vasuki Rajarajan,
R. Ramchandran, Parth Sarathi, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Ms.
Soumya Gulati, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman,
Garvesh Kabra, Parth Kaushik, Arihant Jain, Ms. Tanisha Gopal,
Sameer Shrivastava, Palak Mathur, Ms. Yashika Varshney.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.
INDEX*
I.
Introduction ..................................................................................
3
II.
Orders passed by the respective High Courts, impugned in the
appeals ...........................................................................................
6
Impugned Judgment in the lead appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1385
of 2025 and Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2025 ................................
6
Impugned Judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 6365 - 6367 of 2025 ....
7
Impugned Order in Civil Appeal Nos. 1364 - 1367 of 2025 .........
8
Impugned judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 1389, 1390, 1391, 1393,
1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1401, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407,
1408, 1409, 1410 of 2025 ............................................................
9
Impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6364 of 2025 ................. 12
Summary of the judgments ........................................................... 13
III.
Previous decisions concerning the RTE Act ..............................
14
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan ................... 14
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India ......... 18
IV.
Arguments of the Parties ............................................................ 27
V.
The Acts, Rules, Regulations and Notifications .............................. 40
VI.
Analysis and Reasons ................................................................... 45
A. From promise to right: the constitutional journey of article
21A and the right to elementary education in India ............. 46
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
422
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
B. Breathing life into the promise: the RTE Act and the
realisation of Article 21A ..................................................... 51
C. The constitutional goal of universal elementary education
and common schooling system ..............................................
54
D. Section 12(1)(c), minority institutions and the beginning of
the conundrum ....................................................................... 56
E. The cost of exclusion: consequences of exempting minority
institutions from the ambit of the RTE Act ......................... 64
F.
Does Article 30(1) really envisage blanket immunity from all
forms of regulation to minority institutions? .....................
72
G. Does the regulatory framework under the rte act, flowing
from Article 21A, classify as a reasonable restriction under
article 19(6)? ......................................................................... 78
H. Minority institutions and the shared constitutional
responsibility under Article .................................................. 82
I.
Teachers' role in imparting quality education .....................
84
J.
Applicability of the TET to in-service teachers appointed
prior to 2009 and requirement of TET qualification for
promotion of teachers ..........................................................
88
K. Our findings ........................................................................... 91
On perceived conflict between Articles 21A and 30(1) and
the applicability of the RTE Act to minority institutions .... 91
On applicability of Section 12(1)(c), RTE Act to minority
institutions .............................................................................. 95
L. Summary of our views on Pramati Educational and Cultural
Trust ...................................................................................... 99
M. Requirement of minimum qualification - whether applicable
to in-service teachers? ......................................................... 100
N. On minimum qualifications versus eligibility ......................... 103
VII. Order of reference for consideration by a larger bench .........105
VIII. Order on applicability of the TET to in-service teachers ......... 108
I.
Introduction
1.
These civil appeals challenge judgments/orders of two of the three
chartered high courts of the nation delivered/made on multiple
proceedings instituted before them. Inter alia, questions as regards
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
423
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
applicability of the Teacher Eligibility Test1 to minority educational
institutions and whether qualifying in the TET is a mandatory
prerequisite for recruitment of teachers as well as promotion of
teachers already in service, were under consideration in such
proceedings. In brief, the appellants before this Court are:
a.
Minority educational institutions who are aggrieved because
they are not being allowed to recruit teachers who have not
qualified in the TET;
b.
Authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
claiming that qualifying the TET is a mandatory requirement
for appointment of teachers not only in non-minority but also
minority institutions, whether aided or unaided; and
c.
Individual teachers, who were appointed prior to the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20092 being
enforced, claiming that the TET qualification cannot be made
a mandatory requirement for the purposes of their promotion.
2.
The present set of appeals raise questions of seminal importance.
Vide order dated 28th January, 2025 in the erstwhile lead matter, viz.
Civil Appeal No.1384 of 20253, the issues for consideration were
framed by us. The said appeal came to be disposed of as withdrawn
along with certain other appeals, vide order dated 20th February 2025,
as the appellant(s) did not wish to pursue the appeals any further;
however, the remaining tagged appeals were heard and subsequently
reserved for judgment (with the lead matter now being Civil Appeal
No. 1385 of 2025).
3.
Two broad issues arising for consideration were noted in the order
dated 28th January, 2025. The first issue was framed by a coordinate
Bench vide order dated 14th February, 2022 in B. Annie Packiarani
Bai (supra) whereas the other was framed by us, upon hearing
counsel for the parties who had the occasion to address the Court
on 28th January, 2025. The issues, as recast, read as under:
a.
Whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment
in a minority educational institution must qualify the TET? If
1
TET
2
RTE Act
3
The Director of School Education Chennai 6 & Anr. vs. B. Annie Packiarani Bai
424
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
so, whether providing such a qualification would affect any
of the rights of the minority institutions guaranteed under the
Constitution of India?
and
b.
Whether teachers appointed much prior to issuance of
Notification No.61-1/2011/NCTE (N & S) dated 29th July, 2011 by
the National Council for Teacher Education4 under sub-section
(1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act read with the newly inserted
proviso (second proviso) in Section 23(2) and having years
of teaching experience (say, 25 to 30 years) are required to
qualify in the TET for being considered eligible for promotion?
II.
Orders passed by the respective High Courts, impugned in
the appeals
4.
At the outset, we consider it appropriate to give a brief outline of
the judgments/orders under challenge in the present surviving set
of appeals.
Impugned Judgment In The Lead Appeal Being Civil Appeal No. 1385
Of 2025 And Civil Appeal No. 1386 Of 2025
5.
The judgment impugned in the lead appeal is that of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay5 dated 12th December 2017 on a writ petition6
instituted by Azad Education Society, Miraj (a minority institution).
Under challenge was a Government Resolution dated 23rd August,
2013, by which the TET qualification was made a pre-condition for
appointment of teachers in schools imparting primary education by
the Government of Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court considered
the validity of such resolution and upheld it relying on the decision
of this Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State
of Gujarat7. It was held that the impugned Government Resolution
did not put any embargo on the right of the minority institutions to
appoint teachers of their own choice, if found eligible being a TET
qualified candidate. The writ petition, thus, came to be dismissed by
4
NCTE
5
Bombay High Court
6
Writ Petition No. 4640 of 2016
7
(1974) 1 SCC 717
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
425
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
the impugned order. Azad Education Society, Miraj has not preferred
any appeal against the said judgment.
6.
The appellant, Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (a recognised minority
education society), was not a party to the writ petition instituted by
Azad Education Society, Miraj before the Bombay High Court. It
sought permission to file the special leave petition against the said
judgment, which was granted. Its appeal is Civil Appeal No. 1385
of 2025.
7.
The same judgment has also been impugned by the appellant,
Association of Urdu Education Societies (an association managing
minority educational institutions), in Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2025 in
the same manner upon being granted permission to file the special
leave petition.
8.
It has been argued that this judgment (dated 12th December 2017)
failed to consider a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of the Bombay
High Court8 which took a contrary view.
Impugned Judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 6365 - 6367 of 2025
9.
The impugned judgment in these civil appeals has been passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras9, whereby the writ appeals10
filed by the appellants therein, i.e., the State of Tamil Nadu and
officers in the State's Education Department, came to be dismissed.
10. The writ petitions11 were filed by the Management of Islamiah Higher
Secondary Schools (respondent herein, being a minority institution),
challenging the rejection of their proposal for appointment of teachers.
The District Educational Officer denied the proposal for appointment
observing that surplus/excess staff under the same management
must be exhausted fully before making fresh appointments.
11. A Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 7th December,
2021, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the rejection of the
proposal and held that the respondent, as a standalone institution,
8
Judgment dated 8th May, 2015 in W.P. No. 1164 of 2015 (Aurangabad Bench) titled 'Anjuman Ishaat E
Taleem Trust, Aurangabad and another v The State of Maharashtra and others'
9
Madras High Court
10
Writ Appeal Nos. 1674, 1678 and 1679 of 2022
11
W.P. Nos. 11855, 11857 & 11862 of 2021
426
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was not bound by the rule of recruiting surplus staff under the same
management.
12. The writ appeal against the order of the Single Judge came to be
dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and
order dated 22nd July, 2022, which is impugned in these appeals by
the State of Tamil Nadu and its officers.
13. Interestingly, the argument regarding the TET qualification was not
raised before the Madras High Court and is being raised for the first
time in the present appeal. The State of Tamil Nadu has contended
that the teachers sought to be appointed did not possess the TET
qualification and hence, their proposal for appointment should be
rejected on that ground alone.
Impugned Order in Civil Appeal Nos. 1364 - 1367 of 2025
14. The common order under challenge in these appeals, dated 1st April
2019, was passed by the Bombay High Court on four writ petitions12.
Interim relief was granted thereby in favour of the writ petitioners.
15. In 2015, the Bombay Memon's Education Society, a registered minority
society, had appointed Shikshan Sevaks/teachers for a school run
by it, viz. Shree Ram Welfare Society's High School. In 2018, the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai13, through its Education
Department informed these teachers of the requirement to qualify
the TET by 30th March, 2019 and directed the school to terminate
the services of those who failed to comply.
16. Challenging these directions, the affected teachers filed the said
four writ petitions. The Bombay High Court granted interim stay on
the MCGM's directives and also directed that the salaries of the
teachers be released. Aggrieved thereby, the MCGM has preferred
the present appeals.
Impugned judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 1389, 1390, 1391, 1393,
1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1401, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407,
1408, 1409, 1410 of 2025
12
Writ Petition Nos. 3951, 4044, 9446 and 9447 of 2016
13
MCGM
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
427
Anjuman Ishaat- E- Taleem Trust v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
17. The common judgment dated 2nd June, 2023 under challenge in these
appeals was passed by the Madras High Court in its intra-court writ
appeal jurisdiction. Several individual teachers working in minority
as well as non-minority schools in Tamil Nadu petitioned the Madras
High Court aggrieved by Notification F.No.61-03/20/2010/NCTE/
(N&S) dated 23rd August, 2010 issued by the NCTE which laid down
minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in classes I to VIII
in a school and also made the TET as the minimum qualification.